Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

OD-17689 submodule xapi-proto add gpid to ImpExt_rp #10

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jun 7, 2023
Merged

Conversation

BenjaminWassermann
Copy link
Collaborator

@@ -138,6 +138,13 @@ message ImpExt {

// Floor data used to synthesize RTB rules.
repeated Floor floors = 9;

// OD-17689 GPID needs to be handled by ImpExt_rp
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Our internal tickets shouldn't be mentioned in the documentation

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

Comment on lines 144 to 146
// to all participants in buying impressions for this placement. In general,
// this field will be populated with one of the DFP Ad Unit Code, Prebid Ad Slot,
// or value provided by the publisher or ad server.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This phrasing doesn't really make sense to me. It seems like it's talking about us populating it? This is for the incoming bid request, not something we have any control over—the value would always be populated by the publisher/ad server.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Duplicated the comment from the original gpid schema definition:
https://github.com/MagniteEngineering/xapi-proto/blob/22f50d93da9478306897702878586385073c214e/src/proto/com/magnite/openrtb/v2/openrtb-xapi.proto#LL154C1-L154C1

I feel we should keep them the same for consistency. Do you think they should be updated or maintained as-is?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, didn't realize that. I guess that's ok then. I'd still suggest maybe changing in both comments "will" to "should" and "value" to "some value." The original PR (#4) has more context on the intention.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

done

@eskenny eskenny merged commit 2f4e4d2 into main Jun 7, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants